Hillary's looming electability

[frankcor]

swimmy, here's my recollection of those times. Keep in mind, my keen, political analysis skills were far from being fully developed at the time, but I was paying attention.

The Watergate scandal consumed the White House shortly after the beginning of Nixon's second term. For more than three years, the administration, as well as congress were completely occupied by investigations, subpoenas, hearings and trials. In my mind, it was Monica Lewinski on steroids. Congress could smell blood and were circling closer, getting ready to feast on his entrails.

The total disruption in leadership was probably Gerald Ford's greatest motivation in pardoning Nixon soon after taking office. Ford had to fear a continuation of the scandal through a two or more years of Nixon on trial and chose, instead, to sacrifice his own political future for the good of the nation. I believe history has shown him to be right.

[Swimmy]

Hmmm. That is an interesting perspective. I was thinking in a more literal approach. But after that explanation, you're correct. With that background, it makes Ford's pardon even more logical and understandable. I've been a fan of Ford's decision to pardon for a long time, that analysis only solidifies my opinion.

[frankcor]

dgriffin, that's an interesting premise, one that I must admit, I have often considered.

However, I believe there are several examples where the leadership did make a difference in the outcome. If Lincoln had not become the Republican presidential candidate in 1860, it is unlikely that any of his rivals would have assembled a cabinet like his. In fact, he persuaded his rivals, Seward, Chase and Bates to become members of his cabinet, a move that shocked many pundits of the time. (source: A Team of Rivals[\i] by Doris Kearns Goodwin). It's quite likely that move shaped our history. With the outcome of the rebellion far from certain, only the strongest of leaders could have pulled off the military, economic, industrial and diplomatic maneuvers that lead to the preservation of the Union.

Another example, would every possible replacement for Harry Truman have made the same decision to use the A-bomb to end WWII? Would the Soviet Union been able to soldify a communist, unified Asian continent while we slogged it out in Japan? (and with Adlai Stevenson calling for a timetable for withdrawal? )

I'll repeat the one thing of which I am certain: with the current field of leading Democrat and Republican candidates, it really doesn't matter which one becomes president. Government is going to grow. Freedoms will be restricted. We will remain in Iraq. Taxes will go up.

Oh, and the Yankees will win the pennant. And that's really what it's all about.

[Swimmy]

You have a dismal outlook for the election outcome, but I have to admit that I share your sentiments.

[frankcor]

swimmy, oh Chief Water Buffalo! I am humbled by your complimentary and kind words.

We are not worthy! We are not worthy!

[frankcor]

re: my dismal outlook.

It's probably the result of two factors:

1. the past 12 years have helped me to lower my expectations
2. low expectations lead to reduced disappointment

Hmmm... that probably didn't cheer you up much.

[dgriffin]

Francor: As I said, I think we could make war an exception to the rule. Of course, one could argue with your examples of Lincoln and HST by saying a)northern industrialists would have organized the war and b)the generals prior to Hiroshima would have presented a convincing argument to any president, but I'm just speculating. I do think that if Lincoln had not been president, the south would have been treated more severely. Sherman, who had lived in the south and knew it well, warned Lincoln that unless the southern aristocratic "young turks" were all murdered, the war would never truly be over. And it didn't end abruptly at Appomattox, but instead went on with skirmishes for quite a few years, I've read. Like Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Swimmy]

hahahaha, the bowing smilies say it all. lol!

Yeah, low expectations yield less disappointment.

[frankcor]

Good point about war, dgriffin. I missed that caveat the first time I read your suggestion. I'm hard pressed to come up with a peace-time example. It is interesting, however, to wonder if Al Gore would have led us down a different path following 2001 had he won in Florida.

---

You earned 'em, swimmy.

[Swimmy]

I was about to mention Kennedy mandating that we put a man on the moon before 1970, but that was during the cold war. What about FDR's new deal?

[frankcor]

Don't remind me. We're still saddled with that redistributionist nightmare. (FDR's new deal)

[Swimmy]

I think we're worse now than we were then.

[dgriffin]

>>> saddled with that redistributionist nightmare<<<
You may find this interesting:
weblamp.princeton.edu/rppe/events/apr2003conf/Iversen.pdf
Found it tonight while looking for that Brit who thinks politicians don't matter.
Dave

[frankcor]

Hmmm... Princeton hosting a paper written at Harvard? Did I mention Harvard sucks? Go Big Red!

Thanks Dave. I read the introduction and the puzzles the authors present, though counter-intuitive, were quite interesting.

[Swimmy]

Seems like a very interesting read. When I have more time, I'll finish reading it.